Case summaries
Membership of an organisation that was responsible for committing war crimes is not sufficient on its own to justify exclusion under Article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention or Article 12(2)(a) of the Qualification Directive. Membership of the LTTE or its ‘Intelligence Division” was not enough, on its own, to justify the applicant’s exclusion.
Responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity should be considered with regard to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and other international legal materials that have come into existence following the adoption of the Refugee Convention.
The decision maker should concentrate on the actual role played by the particular persons, taking all material aspects of that role into account so as to decide whether the required degree of participation is established. The Court identified a non-exhaustive list of some of the relevant factors that should be considered.
The failure to respect the procedural guarantees provided under Article 3.4 of the Dublin II Regulation constitutes a serious and manifestly illegal infringement of the right of asylum.
The situation which currently prevails in the region of Mosul, as well as in the whole territory of Iraq, can no longer be considered as a situation of armed conflict, within the meaning of Article L.712-1 c) of Ceseda [which transposes Article 15 (c) of the Qualification Directive].
The Family Reunification Directive does not make a distinction between whether a family relationship arose before or after the entry of the resident into the Member State. An application for family reunification may not be refused where the sponsor, the resident within EU territory, has proved that he has stable and regular resources which are sufficient to maintain himself and the members of his family, but who, given the level of his resources, will, nevertheless, be entitled to claim special assistance in order to meet exceptional, individually determined, essential living costs, tax refunds, or income-support measures.
The case concerned an appeal before the Supreme Court lodged by the Attorney General against the decision of the High National Court to grant refugee status. Status was granted to a Moroccan army deserter on the basis of a well founded fear of persecution on the grounds of political opinion. At issue on appeal was whether refugee status was granted based upon a fear of persecution resulting from the army desertion (which took place in Morocco), or due to the imputed political opinions that had arisen since his desertion (which arose in Spain): i.e. whether the applicant was a refugee sur place.
The Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic held that only such threats to life or liberty as are tolerated, encouraged or accompanied by official authority can be regarded as persecution within the meaning of Section 8 of the Asylum Act, while problems with private individuals cannot be a ground for granting asylum, as long as the political system in the country of origin affords citizens the possibility of defending their rights before state authorities.
A group can be considered to be a particular social group when the members of the group share innate characteristics or a common background which cannot be changed, or when they share a characteristic or belief that is so fundamental to their identity or conscience that a given individual should not be compelled to renounce it, and the group is seen to be different by the surrounding society. Depending on the circumstances in the country of origin, a particularsocial group may be based on a common characteristic of sexual orientation, but such orientation may not be understood to include acts that are considered punishable under a specific regulation.
The case concerned an appeal submitted before the Supreme Court against the decision of the High National Court to refuse refugee status on the grounds that it was not established that the persecution alleged against the applicants was individually and personally targeted. The Supreme Court found that the High National Court erred in requiring a higher standard of proof than what was needed. The High National Court had required the applicant to demonstrate ‘conclusive evidence’ (“full evidence”) of persecution, however, a lower standard of evidence was required by the law.
The appellants argued that they were at risk of re-trafficking and would not find protection anywhere in Albania. The tribunal agreed, and laid down country guidance on the risks facing trafficked women and the absence of effective protection from these risks.
The CALL ruled that when a Palestinian refugee, who is under the care of United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA), resides outside the mandate areas of UNWRA, then this person no longer benefits from the protection of UNWRA and therefore falls under Art 1D(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, meaning that this person has an automatic right to the protection of the Convention. It should however be examined whether the person can return to the mandate areas and place him/herself back under the protection of UNWRA.
In the situation which currently prevails in Algeria, while homosexuality is in some ways tolerated by society, as long as it is not explicitly expressed by the behaviour or the clothes, individuals who openly manifest their homosexuality may nevertheless be subjected to intimidation in their social environment and by the security forces. In addition, legislation punishes homosexuals by a prison sentence and a fine.